The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Indo, Which section of the constitution would they create this legislation under?
@Seeds "I’m still leaning towards No though. Because of my new found fondness for the constitution and my ongoing confusion as to what it’s purpose is."
Haha. That's funny. It's pretty meat and potatoes, not some venerable document like the US constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It's just a framework for setting up our federal system, pretty boring and the result of a lot of to'ing and fro'ing between the old colonies and the new federal parliament as to who had power over what. The only interesting thing when I studied it at Uni was the lengths the States went to and the tricky schemes they created to try and get more share of the tax revenue and tax power given to the feds.
It should be subject to change when change demands it, it shouldn't be written in stone and held up as some kind of infallible dogma. It contains no Bill of Rights, no declaration of equality, nothing really noble or supremely principled, nothing our soldiers should be expected to defend with their lives like in the US. Like I said, meat and potatoes. It has a built in mechanism for change, it was designed to be changed. Adding a Voice really, despite all the bleatings from those who oppose the Voice, does fuck all and means fuck all except to FNP.
It surprises me a bit that people have become so enamored in it and find changing it so significant and abhorrent to their sensibilities. Bit ignorant and childish to me, but each to their own.
You should vote yes in my opinion. You won't notice a bit of difference, but some FNP might. But you do you Seeds, I'll still like you no matter.
seeds wrote:Indo, Which section of the constitution would they create this legislation under?
I think you are misunderstanding what ive said or what was suggested to Albo by others, nothing changes in structure just in order.
The way they currently want to do things is put the basic wording in the constitution and then latter create the voice legislation.
But the way that was suggested to Albo was to create the voice first get it operating then latter go okay this is it, we want to put it in the constitution, then the basic wording gets put in the constitution.
I think you’re giving Albo too much credit but more importantly too much blame. He’s trying to implement it, badly I might add, but this is not his baby.
Sure why not legislate it? What part of the constitution could it be legislated under currently?
"The doctrine of terra nullius, finally rejected in the Mabo
decision, embraced and made law the myth that in 1788
Australia was an unoccupied country. This doctrine was just
one example of a broader rejection of all Indigenous systems
of pre-existing social and political organisation.
Terra nullius said there are no owners of this land so we,
the colonisers, can establish a system of land ownership. On
a broader application this approach also said:
• there is no law, so we can establish a legal system;
• there is no language, so we can declare an official language;
• there is no culture, so we can nominate and endorse a
national culture; and
• there is no decision-making structure or system of authority so we can empower a parliament.
In rejecting the existence of Aboriginal and Islander nations in 1901 the establishment of the nation state, Australia,
was legitimated and the displacement and annihilation of our
structures was sanctioned by law. The very foundations of
the current accepted Australian legal, political and social
institutions and the Commonwealth of Australia are based on
the total denial o f pre-existing systems."
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/1997/23.pdf
thermalben wrote:
time to stop fucking around : ) vote yes, see how we go.
@ Indo.
Yes, it could have been legislated first and then a referendum, which Dutton and the LNP would still have opposed as unnecessary and raised the same constitutional objections as he is now. I would also guarantee he would have opposed and sought to amend or repeal the legislated version if he ever got power, and he or the LNP saw a culture war victory in it. His motivation is a political defeat for the ALP, he doesn't give a fuck about FNP or the Voice, it's just a means to an end.
It also would be ignoring what is at the heart of the whole issue, which is that enshrining the Voice is what was requested by FNP when they were asked, by both sides of politics, but originally by the right, what they wanted. It's not Albanese that requested it, it was in the Uluru Statement.
FNP don't trust a legislated Voice unless it is enshrined and you can't really blame them, they don't own it then, it's just another ATSIC, they can lose it on the whims of the political winds.
If has happened to them before.
It also ignores the request of constitutional recognition through a Voice, not just constitutional recognition without one, or a legislated Voice without constitutional recognition through one. the two are inherently intertwined for FNP and in the Uluru statement.
You can't have a situation where whitey asks blaks "What do you want?", they spend the time to consult and decide, give their answer, and then whitey goes "Nah, you can have half of it, see how that goes, then we'll tell you if you get the other half but if it suits us you might end up with nothing again".
I wouldn't accept that either.
The days of whitey telling them what's good for them should be over, that is the whole point of this. They should have the recognition and the ability to have that say for themselves, forever.
The only obligation is to listen to what they say.
It's nothing really.
adam12 wrote:@Seeds "I’m still leaning towards No though. Because of my new found fondness for the constitution and my ongoing confusion as to what it’s purpose is."
Haha. That's funny. It's pretty meat and potatoes, not some venerable document like the US constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It's just a framework for setting up our federal system, pretty boring and the result of a lot of to'ing and fro'ing between the old colonies and the new federal parliament as to who had power over what. The only interesting thing when I studied it at Uni was the lengths the States went to and the tricky schemes they created to try and get more share of the tax revenue and tax power given to the feds.
It should be subject to change when change demands it, it shouldn't be written in stone and held up as some kind of infallible dogma. It contains no Bill of Rights, no declaration of equality, nothing really noble or supremely principled, nothing our soldiers should be expected to defend with their lives like in the US. Like I said, meat and potatoes. It has a built in mechanism for change, it was designed to be changed. Adding a Voice really, despite all the bleatings from those who oppose the Voice, does fuck all and means fuck all except to FNP.
It surprises me a bit that people have become so enamored in it and find changing it so significant and abhorrent to their sensibilities. Bit ignorant and childish to me, but each to their own.
You should vote yes in my opinion. You won't notice a bit of difference, but some FNP might. But you do you Seeds, I'll still like you no matter.
Screw you man I’ve got my 2nd or is it 4th rights of something but I can bleat till the rest of the world hates the sound of my voice but it’s the constitution of rights or something and if you don’t like it I’ll fumble with my gun and shoot off my big toe. Oh yeah that’s my freedum of screech too so yeah screw you man.
I’ll die for the constipation!!!!
Back to the beginning conservatives help write and oversee the Voice referendum this is important.
Constitutional recognition for Aboriginals is problematic for conservatives in as much they don't want to cede power in any way.
They don't want to give avenues for further claims etc.
A trade off appears to have been arrived at by combining the Voice and recognizing it in the constitution as a means of achieving recognition without giving any means of ongoing claims using that recognition as a vehicle.
Ironically this is the very opposite of the Voice opponents claims all very nasty stuff as surely insiders would know this.
I wonder the damage down the road to conservative movements due to the gross betrayal.
A life lived in fear is a life half lived.
Throw caution to the wind any and all people who may doubt this process.
The Aboriginal people will be stoked (Hey Indo hehe).. Throw caution to the wind, just do it for them. It will mean so so much for them.
Forget about all the other crap because its all just fabble (if that's a word) off to work for me now ..
Consider voting YES! Cheers
adam12 wrote:@ Indo.
Yes, it could have been legislated first and then a referendum, which Dutton and the LNP would still have opposed as unnecessary and raised the same constitutional objections as he is now. I would also guarantee he would have opposed and sought to amend or repeal the legislated version if he ever got power, and he or the LNP saw a culture war victory in it. His motivation is a political defeat for the ALP, he doesn't give a fuck about FNP or the Voice, it's just a means to an end.
It also would be ignoring what is at the heart of the whole issue, which is that enshrining the Voice is what was requested by FNP when they were asked, by both sides of politics, but originally by the right, what they wanted. It's not Albanese that requested it, it was in the Uluru Statement.
FNP don't trust a legislated Voice unless it is enshrined and you can't really blame them, they don't own it then, it's just another ATSIC, they can lose it on the whims of the political winds.
If has happened to them before.
It also ignores the request of constitutional recognition through a Voice, not just constitutional recognition without one, or a legislated Voice without constitutional recognition through one. the two are inherently intertwined for FNP and in the Uluru statement.
You can't have a situation where whitey asks blaks "What do you want?", they spend the time to consult and decide, give their answer, and then whitey goes "Nah, you can have half of it, see how that goes, then we'll tell you if you get the other half but if it suits us you might end up with nothing again".
I wouldn't accept that either.
The days of whitey telling them what's good for them should be over, that is the whole point of this. They should have the recognition and the ability to have that say for themselves, forever.
The only obligation is to listen to what they say.
It's nothing really.
+1
Voting Yes.
adam12 you're well and truely drifting off into fantasy lala land and the usual Yes camp's lies.
Your argument for the public being given no details doesn't hold up. There is nothing stopping the proponents/architects of The Voice from providing details of its first iteration should a Yes vote win. They have had plenty of time - decades - to design a first iteration and there's no way you could convince me that they don't already know exactly what it would be and have it mapped out. They intentionally refuse to give that information/details.
Also, this stuff is just more stock standard lies and propaganda of the Yes campaign:
adam12 wrote:You can't have a situation where whitey asks blaks "What do you want?", they spend the time to consult and decide, give their answer, and then whitey goes "Nah, you can have half of it, see how that goes, then we'll tell you if you get the other half but if it suits us you might end up with nothing again".
I wouldn't accept that either.
The days of whitey telling them what's good for them should be over, that is the whole point of this. They should have the recognition and the ability to have that say for themselves, forever.
The only obligation is to listen to what they say.
It's nothing really.
The situation you describe that "we can't have" and the "days of whitey" that "should be over" is exactly what The Voice is. It's just an advisory body and "whiteys" can still decide if they take up and implement the advice of The Voice or not. Also, FNPs already have a large number of bodies and avenues via which they have a listened to voice and direct say in order to provide advice on and participate in decisions that affect them.
Regarding modifying the constitution, inserting race/ethnicity/ancestry/indigeneity clauses is not a valid reason to modify the constitution, nor is "wokenizing" it to "recognise" first nations people. There are long-term uncertainties and risks associated with the proposed modifications in terms of their future interpretation in a changing society, and with your background in law you know this as well as anyone. The constitution is not a cultural document to recognise and celebrate diversity and inclusion in these woke identity and social justice wars and activist times. Also, the constitution currently does not discriminate against, disadvantage or marginalise any peoples; it is a neutral document and should remain so and/or if there still exist ways that it can be modified to be made more neutral then this is what we should be holding a referendum for.
Simple ey....
Off topic but just maybe we all have far more to worry about than whether a referendum is successful. The milk cow of government may be a little dry when negotiations occur following a yes or a no.
So many risks. Some like Chinese demographics and the risks it poses for Australia's wealth from exports are baked into the cake.
?feature=shared seeds wrote:I think you’re giving Albo too much credit but more importantly too much blame. He’s trying to implement it, badly I might add, but this is not his baby.
Sure why not legislate it? What part of the constitution could it be legislated under currently?
My understanding:
There is two seperate things
1. The voice itself with the detail.
2. The basic wording in the constitution.(that im sure we have all read)
The voice can operate as policy only or it can be supported by the constitution.
The wording in the constitution ensures the the voice is always there and provides it more power in a sense.
In regard to where the wording sits in the constitution, its a brand new chapter. (quite a change in itself)
I dont know if it was Albo alone who ignored advice to put it in policy first before taking it to a referendum but he is the PM, if you want to blame the party too then fine, either way major fuck up on their part if it doesn't get up
adam12 wrote:@ Indo.
Yes, it could have been legislated first and then a referendum, which Dutton and the LNP would still have opposed as unnecessary and raised the same constitutional objections as he is now. I would also guarantee he would have opposed and sought to amend or repeal the legislated version if he ever got power, and he or the LNP saw a culture war victory in it. His motivation is a political defeat for the ALP, he doesn't give a fuck about FNP or the Voice, it's just a means to an end.
It also would be ignoring what is at the heart of the whole issue, which is that enshrining the Voice is what was requested by FNP when they were asked, by both sides of politics, but originally by the right, what they wanted. It's not Albanese that requested it, it was in the Uluru Statement.
FNP don't trust a legislated Voice unless it is enshrined and you can't really blame them, they don't own it then, it's just another ATSIC, they can lose it on the whims of the political winds.
If has happened to them before.
It also ignores the request of constitutional recognition through a Voice, not just constitutional recognition without one, or a legislated Voice without constitutional recognition through one. the two are inherently intertwined for FNP and in the Uluru statement.
You can't have a situation where whitey asks blaks "What do you want?", they spend the time to consult and decide, give their answer, and then whitey goes "Nah, you can have half of it, see how that goes, then we'll tell you if you get the other half but if it suits us you might end up with nothing again".
I wouldn't accept that either.
The days of whitey telling them what's good for them should be over, that is the whole point of this. They should have the recognition and the ability to have that say for themselves, forever.
The only obligation is to listen to what they say.
It's nothing really.
As policy only LNP would have no issue with the Voice whatsoever but yes you would hope they would still oppose it at a referendum because it wouldn't change the activist aims of the USFTH that they have made very clear (power and money, re writing history)
However it still would have been much much smarter avenue for Labor the generally public would have more confidence seeing it in action, it would have taken much ammunition away from the No camp.
Im very happy Albo ignored advice to him though, advice from key Yes people around him including from Noel, you can only assume Albo was over confident because he still had the Constitutional recognition aspect to drag things through with, something not many on its own would ever oppose including LNP.
Or maybe it was due to success of same sex marriage plebiscite a very different thing for voters as not compulsory, and those who couldn't care less about voting and didnt vote in it but will have to in this are said tend to vote against change which favours a No vote
Or maybe he just wanted to hit the trigger in a year without other elections to distract that doesn't happen that often so rushed things.
Who knows but he fucked up and im glad he did because chances of this getting up a slim.
ASTIC lasted 15 years and had bipartisan support to scrap, its actually a good lesson in why its not a good idea to put these things in the constitution even if the detail itself can be changed.
And the idea LNP oppose or are against Indigenous people is completely false the NIAA was created by the LNP as was the Coalition of peaks.
The Coalition of peaks really is a federal advisory body that brings many voices together.
"representative body of more than 80 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled peak organisations and members."
https://www.coalitionofpeaks.org.au/
The whole idea/narrative that Aboriginal people dont have a say or voice is complete garbage it happens at every level from, council to state to federal.
BTW. There is a perception among some that all progress on Aboriginal matters was made under Labor due to things like land rights Sorry etc
But under LNP all these things happened
-1965 Voting rights for Indigenous people was made national ,
-1967 referendum happened recognising FNP people in the census and allowing laws to be made for them.
- The minister of indigenous affairs position was created, which quite literally is the first voice from Aboriginal people to Parliament.
-The first Aboriginal to sit in parliament (Neville Bonner),
-First Aboriginal to hold the minister minister of indigenous affairs position (Ken Wyatt)
(which lets be real should have happened long ago)
-Hopefully one day we can add first Aboriginal PM to this list in Jacinta price, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
-LNP have also talked about constitutional recognition for Indigenous people since Howard, but they fucked up in this area because if they had made it happen in a basic way it wouldn't be able to be used now to mislead people and drag through the voice.
BTW. The way democracies work is we all get a say, just because one group wants or suggest something doesn't mean they deserve or get it, and poltics is all about compromise, those involved in the USFTH clearly are trying to bite off to much and as a result will most likely lose out and get far less than they could have.
“Also, the constitution currently does not discriminate against, disadvantage or marginalise any peoples; it is a neutral document and should remain so and/or if there are ways it can be modified to be made more neutral then this is what we should be holding a referendum for.”
Then how on earth did Howard and that other deplorable Mal Brough enact laws for the Northern Territory intervention?
That shameful episode did exactly as you state above couldn’t possibly happen.
Was the legislation illegal or did the constitution allow it?
I think you've got your logic a bit mixed up there seeds.
The constitution details the formation, structure and operation/functioning of our system of government. It gives the parliament the power to enact legislation/laws for all people of Australia.
The legislation/laws that end up being enacted are up to the parliament, the government (and opposition) of the day and more generally the democratic process.
On this issue your beef is with the government of the day, not the constitution.
Therefore the constitution already allows legislation to be enacted by parliament that discriminates, disadvantage and marginalise people.
Ps my logic is fine.
In that case what you're arguing against is our whole system of government, that it doesn't work: parliamentary/representative democracy, constitutional monarchy, separation of powers, Westminster system, etc.
You're also saying that our democratic process and system of law creation resulted in an executive that got through parliament laws/legislation which in hindsight you personally believe were bad and don't agree with, which is always going to happen in any system of government: decisions will be made that some people don't like or agree with.
To that I'd say you're welcome to design and propose your own new system of government for Australia, or maybe go and start up your own sovereign nation that you can personally rule over.
andy-mac wrote:Simple ey....
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cx84fDVSSIx/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
ABC sellout.
80% LMAO
The reason the No camp are saying it's divisive is due to their Assimilationist fantasies of a One Nation. The right will never be happy until the "primitives" are finally blended into the Whiteys truly superior "race" once and for all... Why do u think the No Knobs on here are always bleating about "everyone under one (whiteys) law" etc.... it's the Pauline Hanson White Nation Fantasy on repeat mode. "Why can't they be more like us..." fukoff Assimilationists... that's been tried before.
harrycoopr wrote:The reason the No camp are saying it's divisive is due to their Assimilationist fantasies of a One Nation. The right will never be happy until the "primitives" are finally blended into the Whiteys truly superior "race" once and for all... Why do u think the No Knobs on here are always bleating about "everyone under one (whiteys) law" etc.... it's the Pauline Hanson White Nation Fantasy on repeat mode. "Why can't they be more like us..." fukoff Assimilationists... that's been tried before.
ahhhhh i think you will find its actually Jacinta Price. And last time i checked i don't think she's white.
But this critical information doesnt fit your narrative so i understand why you went with Pauline Hanson instead.
burleigh wrote:andy-mac wrote:Simple ey....
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cx84fDVSSIx/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
ABC sellout.
80% LMAO
Hey! Check out the opinion of Burley, a vegetable from Queensland who gets literally all of his information from instagram, mainly Rukshan Fernando, and MALCOM FUCKEN ROBERTS.
Yeah mate. Probably gonna side with Briggs here.
actually harry that's something I've been wondering about and wouldn't mind your (or southernraw's) perspective on.
My understanding is that the "objective" in all of this is for FNPs to actively and positively participate and be successful in Australian society while retaining a connection to and practice of their customs, culture, language, etc, all within the law, just like any other "racial/ethnic/religious" etc group in Australia, or indeed just like any Australian citizen.
Is this not the ultimate goal? Is this actually deemed as "assimilation"?
If this is deemed as assimilation and is not the ultimate goal, then what is the ultimate goal of FNPs with Australia? What is then meant by self-determination - a separate sovereign FNP nation state?
Hiccups wrote:burleigh wrote:andy-mac wrote:Simple ey....
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cx84fDVSSIx/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
ABC sellout.
80% LMAO
Hey! Check out the opinion of Burley, a vegetable from Queensland who gets literally all of his information from instagram, mainly Rukshan Fernando, and MALCOM FUCKEN ROBERTS.
Yeah mate. Probably gonna side with Briggs here.
Well Briggs telling me to google it it pretty funny. If we learnt anything from Covid is that google is not to be trusted.
I won't be googling it. I'll go with the people who exposed Covid and governments for what it really was. And they are all in agreement on the NO vote.
burleigh wrote:Hiccups wrote:burleigh wrote:andy-mac wrote:Simple ey....
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cx84fDVSSIx/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
ABC sellout.
80% LMAO
Hey! Check out the opinion of Burley, a vegetable from Queensland who gets literally all of his information from instagram, mainly Rukshan Fernando, and MALCOM FUCKEN ROBERTS.
Yeah mate. Probably gonna side with Briggs here.
Well Briggs telling me to google it it pretty funny. If we learnt anything from Covid is that google is not to be trusted.
So, no i won't be googling it.
Yeah mate. You keep relying on that instagram algorithm, the one that is tailored specifically to your fantasies, and is to be entirely trusted. I've seen Malcom Roberts' posts. What a fountain of reliable truths. PFFFT. You shouldn't even be allowed to vote on who should win Australian Idol.
burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:The reason the No camp are saying it's divisive is due to their Assimilationist fantasies of a One Nation. The right will never be happy until the "primitives" are finally blended into the Whiteys truly superior "race" once and for all... Why do u think the No Knobs on here are always bleating about "everyone under one (whiteys) law" etc.... it's the Pauline Hanson White Nation Fantasy on repeat mode. "Why can't they be more like us..." fukoff Assimilationists... that's been tried before.
ahhhhh i think you will find its actually Jacinta Price. And last time i checked i don't think she's white.
But this critical information doesnt fit your narrative so i understand why you went with Pauline Hanson instead.
Ha... Jacinta Price... the right's new and more acceptable Hanson... "nah, colonisation didn't hurt anyone... actually a benefit!!" Good grief... How on earth can a blackfella say that!! Unless...
"The reason the No camp are saying it's divisive is due to their Assimilationist fantasies"
That definitely seems to be a major factor.
... and don't forget burley yr the one who had a problem with the term blackfella... shows how truly in touch you are... Not.
harrycoopr wrote:burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:The reason the No camp are saying it's divisive is due to their Assimilationist fantasies of a One Nation. The right will never be happy until the "primitives" are finally blended into the Whiteys truly superior "race" once and for all... Why do u think the No Knobs on here are always bleating about "everyone under one (whiteys) law" etc.... it's the Pauline Hanson White Nation Fantasy on repeat mode. "Why can't they be more like us..." fukoff Assimilationists... that's been tried before.
ahhhhh i think you will find its actually Jacinta Price. And last time i checked i don't think she's white.
But this critical information doesnt fit your narrative so i understand why you went with Pauline Hanson instead.
Ha... Jacinta Price... the right's new and more acceptable Hanson... "nah, colonisation didn't hurt anyone... actually a benefit!!" Good grief... How on earth can a blackfella say that!! Unless...
So why didn’t you use her name? Is it because she’s not white and it didn’t fit your agenda?
harrycoopr wrote:... and don't forget burley yr the one who had a problem with the term blackfella... shows how truly in touch you are... Not.
I still won’t use it.
gsco wrote:actually harry that's something I've been wondering about and wouldn't mind your (or southernraw's) perspective on.
My understanding is that the "objective" in all of this is for FNPs to actively and positively participate and be successful in Australian society while retaining a connection to and practice of their customs, culture, language, etc, all within the law, just like any other "racial/ethnic/religious" etc group in Australia, or indeed just like any Australian citizen.
Is this not the ultimate goal? Is this actually deemed as "assimilation"?
If this is deemed as assimilation and is not the ultimate goal, then what is the ultimate goal of FNPs with Australia? What is then meant by self-determination - a separate sovereign FNP nation state?
Whether the right like it or not (not!) Australian society is pluralist/multicultural... since the 50s the government policy was officially one of assimilation up until Whitlam in 72... then self-determination. Everytime there is a conservative govt the policy shifts back to a more assimilationist style ie the intervention. True self determination is what's trying to be recognised by the Voice, whereby regardless of govts the Voice stands as a enshrined body...advisory body. This is so Aboriginal ppl can determine how best to influence policies that affect them... it is empowering which is what a lot of people don't want and are afraid of. Whiteys always been afraid of losing his privilege power and wealth... that much is obvious. Whether the voice works or not is up to the blackfellas... that's self-determination. No throws us back into the assimilationist mindset whereby blackfellas are expected to be like us... sure we'll acknowledge their cultures (esp for the tourism industry) but we'll continue deciding ultimately what's best for them. This is why the No Knobs on here don't like the uppity blackfellas like Langton etc... they prefer the Assimilationist pinup girl JP.
burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:The reason the No camp are saying it's divisive is due to their Assimilationist fantasies of a One Nation. The right will never be happy until the "primitives" are finally blended into the Whiteys truly superior "race" once and for all... Why do u think the No Knobs on here are always bleating about "everyone under one (whiteys) law" etc.... it's the Pauline Hanson White Nation Fantasy on repeat mode. "Why can't they be more like us..." fukoff Assimilationists... that's been tried before.
ahhhhh i think you will find its actually Jacinta Price. And last time i checked i don't think she's white.
But this critical information doesnt fit your narrative so i understand why you went with Pauline Hanson instead.
Ha... Jacinta Price... the right's new and more acceptable Hanson... "nah, colonisation didn't hurt anyone... actually a benefit!!" Good grief... How on earth can a blackfella say that!! Unless...
So why didn’t you use her name? Is it because she’s not white and it didn’t fit your agenda?
U so dumb.
burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:... and don't forget burley yr the one who had a problem with the term blackfella... shows how truly in touch you are... Not.
I still won’t use it.
What about duckduckgo? That's what the cookers use, right?
harrycoopr wrote:burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:The reason the No camp are saying it's divisive is due to their Assimilationist fantasies of a One Nation. The right will never be happy until the "primitives" are finally blended into the Whiteys truly superior "race" once and for all... Why do u think the No Knobs on here are always bleating about "everyone under one (whiteys) law" etc.... it's the Pauline Hanson White Nation Fantasy on repeat mode. "Why can't they be more like us..." fukoff Assimilationists... that's been tried before.
ahhhhh i think you will find its actually Jacinta Price. And last time i checked i don't think she's white.
But this critical information doesnt fit your narrative so i understand why you went with Pauline Hanson instead.
Ha... Jacinta Price... the right's new and more acceptable Hanson... "nah, colonisation didn't hurt anyone... actually a benefit!!" Good grief... How on earth can a blackfella say that!! Unless...
So why didn’t you use her name? Is it because she’s not white and it didn’t fit your agenda?
U so dumb.
Maybe, but at least I don’t pretend to have written papers. Now that’s DUMB
gsco said "adam12 you're well and truely drifting off into fantasy lala land and the usual Yes camp's lies.
Your argument for the public being given no details doesn't hold up. There is nothing stopping the proponents/architects of The Voice from providing details of its first iteration should a Yes vote win."
Yeah, well if you had gone a bit further back you would have also read that I posted this:
"The Yes side, and Albanese in particular, could have done a lot more to explain this.
More could have been done to provide voters with a theoretical explanation of what the Voice could look like and how it will operate.
That is a fundamental failing of the Yes proponents and Albo himself and if the vote fails I can guarantee it will be recognised as a factor in the post mortems."
I'm not living in any fantasy land mate.
You also said
"Regarding modifying the constitution, inserting race/ethnicity/ancestry/indigeneity clauses is not a valid reason to modify the constitution, nor is "wokenizing" it to "recognise" first nations people."
So what was the 1967 referendum and amendment?
"Woke"?
You give yourself away with your dependence on that stupid pejorative.
And my background in law gives me an understanding that this amendment is not some trojan horse that is going to diminish your sacred rights as you fear or create any of the confected scenarios being touted around by the No side.
It is pretty harmless.
They are the original Australians.
That deserves constitutional recognition and they deserve the right to be listened to.
Your paranoia about the commies extends to blaks and the Voice too.
Sad really.
NZ, the USA, Norway, Canada, Finland, Sweden all have constitutional recognition of First Nations.
Why not Australia?
Too woke for us?
The Identity Trap
"A novel ideology is haunting America. Over a stunningly brief span of time, a new set of ideas about the role that identity does—and should—play in society has taken on astonishing power.
These ideas have quickly become widespread in universities. They have transformed the animating ideas and the prevailing norms of left-leaning institutions, from activist spaces to nonprofit organizations. And increasingly, they have real purchase in terrain that was historically inhospitable to radical ideas, such as corporations or religious communities.
In my new book, The Identity Trap, I trace where this ideology originated and how it became so powerful. While I have fundamental disagreements with the thinkers whose work helped to inspire this tradition, I found their concerns to be reasonable and their work to be serious. But then their ideas entered the mainstream in the most viral—and, often, the most vulgar—possible form.
The insights of Michel Foucault inspired the bromides of Robin DiAngelo. The concerns of Derrick Bell turned into the Manichean slogans of Ibram X. Kendi.
Even at their best, these ideas are a trap. While they promise to eradicate injustices and create a better world, they make it more difficult to realize the traditional aspirations of the left. The adoption of these ideas has made it harder for progressive organizations to fulfill their missions. It has led to the adoption of public policies that actively harmed the poor and marginalized people it was supposed to serve. And far from being the most effective bulwark against the danger from the far-right, their ascendancy is a key reason why Donald Trump is now running head-to-head with Joe Biden in polls for the 2024 election. Theoretically speaking, right-wing populism and the identity trap may be adversaries; in practical and political terms, one is the yin to the other’s yang.
The corrosive influence of the identity trap can now be felt in many areas of our public and political life. The popularized version of this novel ideology is putting healthy forms of cultural exchange under a general pall of suspicion. It is responsible for dangerous attacks on the norms sustaining a genuine culture of free speech. It has helped to inspire the practice of “progressive separatism,” leading influential institutions from elementary schools to nonprofit organizations to create racially segregated “affinity groups.” And it is behind the rise and rise of the idea of equity, which mandates positive discrimination to eradicate all disparities in outcomes between different groups, pitting different ethnic groups against each other in a zero-sum competition for resources..."
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-insidious-lie-that-we-cant-understand
"...Pressley, a member of the informal group of far-left congresspeople popularly known as the Squad, has one set of views about what it looks like for a politician to represent the authentic black experience. Democratic members of Congress such as Jim Clyburn and the late John Lewis, who hold considerably more moderate positions, take a different view. Black conservatives such as Congressman Byron Daniels and Senator Tim Scott take an even more starkly different view. The key problem with Pressley’s position consists of the difficulty of determining who can call themselves a legitimate spokesperson for a particular group.
That might seem like an abstract concern. But in practice, the determination of who is a legitimate representative of a group is almost always made by people who are comparatively privileged. The rapid adoption of the term “Latinx” is a canonical example for this phenomenon in the United States. Most activist groups that claim to represent Hispanics have quickly adopted the term. So have the (mostly non-Hispanic) leaders of many mainstream institutions, from the dean of the Harvard Kennedy School to the president of the United States. But according to opinion polls, only about 2 percent of “Latinx” people prefer the new locution to older designations like “Hispanic.”
In societies with significant inequalities of power and status, it is the affluent and well connected who are in the best position to determine who gets to speak on behalf of various identity groups. And so, “the black voice” or “the brown voice” is, in the end, likely to be picked by some combination of powerful members within and outside a particular identity group. As the legendary civil rights activist Bayard Rustin wrote, “The notion of the undifferentiated black community is the intellectual creation of both whites . . . and of certain small groups of blacks who illegitimately claim to speak for the majority.”...'
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-insidious-lie-that-we-cant-understand
I liked this discussion on Q&A the other night.
The comments by Wesley Aird, director of the Centre for Indigenous Training, mirror my own thoughts.
(Thanks Udo for posting this link earlier in the week).
https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/the-voice-voting-visions-for-australia/1028...
Thank you for this info gsco.
I saw it was posted twice and yet, unless I'm mistaken, it wasn't addressed either time.
gsco wrote:I find this to be pretty crazy:
From Kerrynne Liddle, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence, Senator for South Australia, Indigenous Arrernte woman of the Central Desert
Kerrynne Liddle wrote:We’re bombarded with claims and now slick advertising that Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples do not already have a voice. That is simply not true!
I’m one of 11 politicians in the Australian Parliament today. It’s a pretty impressive collection of voices.
There’s an Indigenous ambassador, there are indigenous advocates, commissioners and there’s the experts in the Coalition of Peaks - comprising more than 80 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled organisations representing some 800 organisations.
The Coalition of Peaks already speaks to the Parliamentary Cabinet, to Ministers and has no restriction on who they speak to, or what they speak on.
Indigenous Australians also have a voice through more than 3000 bodies that are funded more than $5.3 billion of Commonwealth Indigenous-specific expenditure to improve the lives of our most marginalised - particularly the nearly 140,000 thousand indigenous Australians living in remote or very remote areas.
The role of the National Indigenous Australians Agency that reports to the Minister for Indigenous Australians – an Indigenous woman herself, and whose sole purpose is delivery of Indigenous programs is overseeing the $4.3 Billion investment through its role of advising government on improving lives through consultation and engagement.
The Albanese Government’s own Budget Papers in October 2022 and May 2023 use language of codesign, collaboration – these are existing concepts, language and practice within processes of the parliament and in the executive government.
The evidence is everywhere that Indigenous Australians already have a voice.
And then from the Coalition of Peaks website:
Coalition of Peaks wrote:As community-controlled organisations, we work for and are accountable to our communities, not governments. We share a belief that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should have a meaningful say on policies and programs that impact us through formal partnerships with all levels of Australian governments, because we know how to best advance our lives.
The National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which came into effect on 27 July 2020, sets out how governments and the Coalition of Peaks will work together to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The Partnership Agreement was made between the then Council of Australian Governments (now National Cabinet) and the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations (the Coalition of Peaks).
The Partnership Agreement means that, for the first time, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, through their community-controlled peak organisations and members, are sharing decisions with governments on Closing the Gap, under a formal arrangement.
The Partnership Agreement sets out how the Australian governments and the Coalition of Peaks work and share decisions together on the design, implementation, and monitoring of Closing the Gap strategies and policies.
The Partnership Agreement will be in place for ten years and includes a commitment to three yearly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led reviews on Closing the Gap.
The Coalition of Peaks believes that shared decision-making between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled representative organisations in the design, implementation, and monitoring of Closing the Gap is essential to improving the life outcomes of our people.
The Partnership Agreement is based on a shared belief of Australian governments and the Coalition of Peaks that:
- When Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are included and have a real say in the design and delivery of services that impact on us, the outcomes are far better.
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need to be at the centre of Closing the Gap policy: the gap won’t close without our full involvement.
- Australian governments cannot expect our people to be in charge of our own lives or to work constructively with them if we are excluded from decision-making.And then there's the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA):
NIAA wrote:The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered.
We recognise each First Nations community is unique. We work in partnership with community to make sure policies, programs and services meet their unique needs.
We work to support the Minister for Indigenous Australians.
The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) works in genuine partnership to enable the self-determination and aspirations of First Nations communities. We lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.
The Executive Order gives the NIAA a number of functions, including:
- to lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
- to provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
- to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia’s Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians; and
to lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation.This whole The Voice charade is complete insanity.
But but but the ABC are leftist biased woke commies!!
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/liberal-party...
Coalition of Peaks wrote:And then from the Coalition of Peaks website:
Coalition of Peaks wrote:
As community-controlled organisations, we work for and are accountable to our communities, not governments. We share a belief that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should have a meaningful say on policies and programs that impact us through formal partnerships with all levels of Australian governments, because we know how to best advance our lives.The National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which came into effect on 27 July 2020, sets out how governments and the Coalition of Peaks will work together to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The Partnership Agreement was made between the then Council of Australian Governments (now National Cabinet) and the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations (the Coalition of Peaks).
The Partnership Agreement means that, for the first time, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, through their community-controlled peak organisations and members, are sharing decisions with governments on Closing the Gap, under a formal arrangement.
The Partnership Agreement sets out how the Australian governments and the Coalition of Peaks work and share decisions together on the design, implementation, and monitoring of Closing the Gap strategies and policies.
The Partnership Agreement will be in place for ten years and includes a commitment to three yearly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led reviews on Closing the Gap.
The Coalition of Peaks believes that shared decision-making between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled representative organisations in the design, implementation, and monitoring of Closing the Gap is essential to improving the life outcomes of our people.
The Partnership Agreement is based on a shared belief of Australian governments and the Coalition of Peaks that:
- When Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are included and have a real say in the design and delivery of services that impact on us, the outcomes are far better.
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need to be at the centre of Closing the Gap policy: the gap won’t close without our full involvement.
- Australian governments cannot expect our people to be in charge of our own lives or to work constructively with them if we are excluded from decision-making.
@gsco
"The constitution details the formation, structure and operation/functioning of our system of government. It gives the parliament the power to enact legislation/laws for all people of Australia.
The legislation/laws that end up being enacted are up to the parliament, the government (and opposition) of the day and more generally the democratic process."
So in other words, no need for details now because the parliament of the day will fill them in when legislation is enacted after debate and negotiation between the elected political parties and anything suggested now has little bearing on what is eventually decided upon by the parliament of the day and this is the process that has been followed since the constitution was written
....whew...glad that's sorted
Sypkan that The Identity Trap substack is a must read by all as Australia fumbles its way into the brave new era of identity politics. Quite simply
The Voice == The Identity Trap
(Double equal signs intended for those who do some coding.)
It’s just not going to work to slice-n-dice society up into identity groups, fabricate a case that they are victims of institutional and legal oppression, discrimination, marginalisation, disadvantage, exploitation, etc, and then create bodies, laws and mechanisms of preferential and privileged treatment for each identity group.
With The Voice Australia has a once in a lifetime opportunity to say “no we’re not going down that path” and instead to choose to maintain equality in liberties and rights, and choose social cohesion.
andy-mac: yes the ABC is all closet Western Marxists…
andy-mac: yes the ABC is all closet Western Marxists…
What does that make Murdoch and Nine media?
Amanda Vanstone a Marxist? Mmmmm she has hidden herself in the closet very well! ;)
@gsco "It’s just not going to work to slice-n-dice society up into identity groups, fabricate a case that they are victims of institutional and legal oppression, discrimination, marginalisation, disadvantage, exploitation, etc, and then create bodies, laws and mechanisms of preferential and privileged treatment for each identity group."
"Fabricate"???
You are fucking joking.
For a smart guy you really are fucking stupid and ignorant to say our history, and FNP's, well documented and recorded, is a fabrication.
Udo just posted some of the vast evidence of what you describe as "fabrication".
And you didn't respond to my reply to you above.
burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:The reason the No camp are saying it's divisive is due to their Assimilationist fantasies of a One Nation. The right will never be happy until the "primitives" are finally blended into the Whiteys truly superior "race" once and for all... Why do u think the No Knobs on here are always bleating about "everyone under one (whiteys) law" etc.... it's the Pauline Hanson White Nation Fantasy on repeat mode. "Why can't they be more like us..." fukoff Assimilationists... that's been tried before.
ahhhhh i think you will find its actually Jacinta Price. And last time i checked i don't think she's white.
But this critical information doesnt fit your narrative so i understand why you went with Pauline Hanson instead.
Ha... Jacinta Price... the right's new and more acceptable Hanson... "nah, colonisation didn't hurt anyone... actually a benefit!!" Good grief... How on earth can a blackfella say that!! Unless...
So why didn’t you use her name? Is it because she’s not white and it didn’t fit your agenda?
U so dumb.
Maybe, but at least I don’t pretend to have written papers. Now that’s DUMB
And this makes u even more dumb...in fact dumber than dumb, just plain stupid. But we already know that.
Uni assignment i did a few years ago. This is my take on things. I'm sure this will ruffle many feathers. I hope so.
Love Blue Diamond x
The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Introduction – Compensatory Justice
Disparities between the standards of living of humans on this planet have long been a part of our history on this planet. From the wealthy nations of the West to the developing and undeveloped nations on this globe, the diversity in the quality of life when viewed from a moral standpoint are without a doubt grossly unfair.
In this paper I will look at why historic injustices do require some form of reparation. I take a strong stance that we are more obliged to solve current injustices than to provide reparation for every act of injustice in the past. In doing this I will first investigate the historic injustice of the Aboriginal people of Australia and I will look at the argument that they are entitled to some form of reparation and why.
I will incoroporate some interesting views from Jeremy Waldron, Robert Nozick and others which will help me slowly build to my conclusion that reparation should be in the form of Non Indigenous Australians surrendering some of our priveleges as a form of reparation.
Historic Injustices to Indigenous Australians:
Australia the continent was well inhabited for many years long before white settlement. It is commonly known that in 1788 Australia was colonised as a country under the rule of the British Empire, with total contempt for the fact that it was already inhabited by a native indigenous race of people.
The way the original inhabitants have been treated, including forced assimilation, execution, stolen families and not even allowed to be recognised as citizens for a large part of white Australia’s history are also well known facts. (Poole, 1999,pp114-142)
There exists now a situation where there is a large divide between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australian’s that can be traced back to the moment Australia was invaded by English settlers and the brutal and unfair treatment that has followed.
So at this point now, in 2013 what is the just and fair way to make amends for past actions?
I would argue that a moderate to large amount of reparation is overdue for this nation of people, the Aboriginal people. But there are many challenges to this view point especially that of how much reparation, and what sort of compensation.
Past injustices or present suffering?
One of the questions raised in an issue like this is whether it is better to provide compensation or reparation for past deeds, which have already been done in a previous generation and cannot be changed, or whether it is better to now provide assistance to those who are suffering in their current situations and consider that as a form of moral duty.
To understand this we need to delve a little deeper into this issue and hear some differing viewpoints.
Firstly we need to understand what the best way to provide reparation. How do we judge what is the best way of giving back and how much? Jeremy Waldron states “The historic record has a fragility that consists, …in the sheer contingency of what happened in the past” (Waldron,1992,p5 )
This is saying that we can’t trace every single injustice back to the original act therefore reparation for every act would be almost impossible because it would ultimately be guess work.
In this statement he has an objection from Robert Nozick who believes it is in fact possible to address this problem by “changing the present so that it resembles how the past would have looked had the injustice not taken place” (McKenzie, 2013)
This would be a way to ultimately provide maximum reparation, but is it the correct approach? I believe this is a fairly radical approach, although it does have some merits in the fact it would be working in a positive way for indigenous people, I don’t think it is entirely the right way to deal with these issues but it is on the right track.
Waldron argues that it is based on too many unknowns. “The status of counterfactual reasoning about the exercising of human reasoning of human freedom is unclear”(Waldron 1993,p10)
Which leaves the question somewhat open about the sort of reparation that is required, but provides one clear answer to the key question. Both agree that yes, reparation to some extent is required. But how much and in what form?
Another philosopher who leans more towards Waldron’s views is Kymlicka. He is somewhat more straightforward in his assessment that property rights in particular for Aboriginals would create “massive unfairness” and also he maintains the argument “Aboriginal rights must be grounded in concerns about equality and contemporary disadvantage. (McKenzie, 2013) I agree with both these views but I don’t think they provide any active solutions.
The Solution?
So if its not handing back all of Australia’s land to the original inhabitants that is the most appropriate way to deal with past injustices, then what is?
I look at the current country I grew up in, as a white Australian. I ask myself why I never had Aboriginal friends growing up, no understanding of Aboriginal culture and why my basic understanding of Indigenous Australians is mostly 200 years old. I look at our flag, a symbol of a nation that stole a country from its original inhabitants, with no recognition of the Indigenous people at all on it. I see that Australia considered Indigenous people as less than people until only 40 years ago and I see the way that Indigenous Australians live a completely separate life to the way of life I know as an Australian. I see that the only indigenous politician I am aware of is a former Olympian and it is because of this fact of her sporting status that I know this. I see no collective power or representation of Indigenous Australians and I see non Indigenous Australians,( a culture built on a history of stealing a land and mistreating its people) still taking, taking as much out of this land as they can, with little to no regard of sharing or giving to the original inhabitants. I see a government that says lots of words about ‘closing the gap’ and bringing the living standards of non- indigenous and indigenous Australians closer together, but apart from nice words, there is no conviction, no follow through, just assimilation , and all that still remains are injustices.
As stated by Sparrow, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013). Although deeds happened in the past beyond our control, what we do now to either ignore, or rectify these issues will reflect on us in history. So if we choose to do nothing, we are contributing to the history of the mistreatment of non- indigenous Australians. And this is simply unacceptable in my opinion.
Conclusion
So what is fair? I believe that the way forward is a surrendering of some of our privileges as non- indigenous Australians. The simple fact is it was morally wrong without a doubt what has happened in the past. And it is also morally wrong without a doubt to ignore these facts and not offer some form of reparation in the present. But how much?
I think that going back to Robert Nozick’s argument is a start. I think Nozick is wrong to make the present resemble the past in every aspect. But I do think that it would be reasonable to restore some aspects of the way things should be. The things that happened in the past were out of our control and we can’t go back to changing the way things were. But we could change the way things are.
For some examples. Why not give at least 50% of political power to indigenous people? It surely would be a fair thing to do considering this is their country. Media control. 50 percent. Industry. Realestate. The list goes on. Why do we not acknowledge the indigenous people on our flag, or better still use their flag? Why is Australia still a part of the Commonwealth when it serves little purpose to any of us and serves as a constant reminder to Indigenous Australians that they are still controlled by the original invaders. These to me are fairly simple reparations that would have minimal impact on Australia as a whole. Perhaps, it would alter the way we live but I think it is our responsibility, morally to forfeit some of our privileges for the greater good. Basically a little bit goes a long way.
In closing, it is a fact that a huge injustice occurred to the Indigenous population and suffering continues to this day. There is no easy solution to such a burden of pain. I believe the only solutions are for the non- Indigenous population to take responsibility and sacrifice our own way of life to bring about an overall equality. Sacrifice is not an easy word. But it all comes down to right and wrong. We are in a position to give, in this current generation. What are we so scared to lose, that was never ours in the first place??
Bibliography
McKenzie,C.”Prof” (2013), Lecture, Historic Injustices and Indigenous Rights, Macquarie University
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28
References
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28